As glad as I am to have won I have to say it looked to me as if the only reason we won the game is because of a coin toss.

Our defense only gave up 17 points but it seemed to not be their fault, more like Chi-Town's own ineptitude. One sure TD dropped and Browner not within 5 yards of the guy on a missed assignments.

But the biggest thing to me is watching our running defensive whom earlier in the season could stop anyone anytime. Our defense is being out worked, out classed, or out coached, not sure which.

Oh yes they did come up with some great plays. But you have to admit they came up with some real stinkers!

And the last Chi-Town scoring play how could their best receiver who had been beating the crap out of us all game be left pretty much unattended? How damned embarassing! Why didn't someone chuck him at the los to screw up the play timing? In fact we seem to have backed off that now after it being so successful earlier in the season.

Am I being picky? Probably but is it to much to expect to want the defensive line we had in the early games, along with the offense we now have? That would be killer. If they continue with this kind of play we won't be killer, we'll be road kill.

The Radish wrote:As glad as I am to have won I have to say it looked to me as if the only reason we won the game is because of a coin toss.

Our defense only gave up 17 points but it seemed to not be their fault, more like Chi-Town's own ineptitude. One sure TD dropped and Browner not within 5 yards of the guy on a missed assignments.

But the biggest thing to me is watching our running defensive whom earlier in the season could stop anyone anytime. Our defense is being out worked, out classed, or out coached, not sure which.

Oh yes they did come up with some great plays. But you have to admit they came up with some real stinkers!

And the last Chi-Town scoring play how could their best receiver who had been beating the crap out of us all game be left pretty much unattended? How damned embarassing! Why didn't someone chuck him at the los to screw up the play timing? In fact we seem to have backed off that now after it being so successful earlier in the season.

Am I being picky? Probably but is it to much to expect to want the defensive line we had in the early games, along with the offense we now have? That would be killer. If they continue with this kind of play we won't be killer, we'll be road kill.

It's not too much to ask for Radish. In fact, it's perfectly reasonable to ask for that since that's what it's going to require in order to make the playoffs and win a Super Bowl, which I still hold hope for this season.

You're absolutely right about the coverage on Marshall on the last play. He's not the easiest guy to jam at the LOS so maybe that's why they backed away from it on this play but if that was the case the coverage on him downfield should have been tighter. I agree that the team has seemed to back away from more press coverage and appear to be dropping into more zones. I don't know if that's to combat the dip in the run defense, since it's tougher to disengage from press coverage to try and support the run than zone, but there's definitely been a noticeable difference. I try not to heap too much crap towards playcalling but Bradley and Carroll have left me puzzled quite a bit as the season has progressed. I'll leave it at that.

I think this win will be a huge boost and we'll see a great effort in front of the fans on Sunday. However, I can see why there'd be cause for concern. Browner definitely got away with 1 on Sunday! Phew!

that last play sucked, no doubt.. but the fact is we had players in the right positions to make a play on the ball... why sherman decided to go for the pick instead of batting it down, don't know, probably just instinct... hopefully he learned a valuable lesson.. but Marshall is that type of reciever that makes those kind of plays.. got to give him credit for coming back to the ball and going up and getting it...

but yes Radish, still cause for concern in other positions as well, they looked a little better sunday. where is the d from the first part of the season? i have seen nothing even remotely close.. very strange to me. they have got to step it up, figure it out, try something new, whatever.. cuz this type of play, will not win playoff road games.

hawker84 wrote:...........where is the d from the first part of the season? i have seen nothing even remotely close.. very strange to me. they have got to step it up, figure it out, try something new, whatever.. cuz this type of play, will not win playoff road games.

The Radish wrote:As glad as I am to have won I have to say it looked to me as if the only reason we won the game is because of a coin toss.

Our defense only gave up 17 points but it seemed to not be their fault, more like Chi-Town's own ineptitude. One sure TD dropped and Browner not within 5 yards of the guy on a missed assignments.

But the biggest thing to me is watching our running defensive whom earlier in the season could stop anyone anytime. Our defense is being out worked, out classed, or out coached, not sure which.

Oh yes they did come up with some great plays. But you have to admit they came up with some real stinkers!

And the last Chi-Town scoring play how could their best receiver who had been beating the crap out of us all game be left pretty much unattended? How damned embarassing! Why didn't someone chuck him at the los to screw up the play timing? In fact we seem to have backed off that now after it being so successful earlier in the season.

Am I being picky? Probably but is it to much to expect to want the defensive line we had in the early games, along with the offense we now have? That would be killer. If they continue with this kind of play we won't be killer, we'll be road kill.

Not picky...astute. Add your comments here to the melt down at Miami and there is definite reason for pause. I think this young team read too much of it's own press earlier in the season. In the bigger picture, it might have been better had Miami beat us by 35. Sometimes the best medicine for primadonna-ism is an old fashioned ass-whuppin.

Not picky it all - there is genuine cause for concern. This is the true importance of pulling your head out of the piles of stats and feel-good rankings and just WATCHING and seeing what happens during a game. Making plays when we need it is ALL that matters. Our 2005 defense wasn't ranked high statistically, but they came up with clutch turnovers and defensive TDs, clutch sacks, and were tough to score on in the red zone. Those are the traits I want from our defense.

I was terrified to lose that coin toss in OT, because I had no doubt Chicago would have moved down the field at will.

It's amazing to me that throughout the season, the strength of this team has inverted from the defense to the offense.

AF_Hawk wrote:That Marshall catch at the end of the 4th qtr pissed me off. Replay shows Sherman tried to catch the ball instead of batting it down. Hopefully he got an earful on that.

I know Pete said in the presser he would have rather Sherman knock the ball down instead of go for it, but I don't understand this line of thinking. It was 1st and 10 for the Bears at that time, about 15 seconds on the clock. If Sherman picks it off, game over. If he knocks it down, Cutler and Marshall get at least 2 more shots. What am I missing?

AF_Hawk wrote:That Marshall catch at the end of the 4th qtr pissed me off. Replay shows Sherman tried to catch the ball instead of batting it down. Hopefully he got an earful on that.

I know Pete said in the presser he would have rather Sherman knock the ball down instead of go for it, but I don't understand this line of thinking. It was 1st and 10 for the Bears at that time, about 15 seconds on the clock. If Sherman picks it off, game over. If he knocks it down, Cutler and Marshall get at least 2 more shots. What am I missing?

The Bears were in a position where their only chance of success was a long completion that also allowed them to get out of bounds. That or a long pass interference call. You don't gamble on that; you protect the sidelines at all costs, leave the middle of the field for the Bears (who had no timeouts to grab a chunk of yards if they like, and win the game that way.

you normally want to bat the ball down in that situation.. yes it leaves time on the clock, but time for what? 1 ior 2 more plays just like that... pick would've sealed , so would a knockdown, and that's easier to do.

AF_Hawk wrote:That Marshall catch at the end of the 4th qtr pissed me off. Replay shows Sherman tried to catch the ball instead of batting it down. Hopefully he got an earful on that.

I know Pete said in the presser he would have rather Sherman knock the ball down instead of go for it, but I don't understand this line of thinking. It was 1st and 10 for the Bears at that time, about 15 seconds on the clock. If Sherman picks it off, game over. If he knocks it down, Cutler and Marshall get at least 2 more shots. What am I missing?

You saw what happened when he tried to pick it, right? That's why DB's aren't receivers. Knocking it down is considerably easier and more effective than trying to catch it.

Another thing that Pete said in his presser, is that they were playing the proper defense on the play, but when Cutler broke out of the pocket, it seemed for a moment that he was about to run. He said this seemed to pull the DB's out of position just enough to leave Marshall in a good position for the ball.

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

FlyingGreg wrote:Not picky it all - there is genuine cause for concern. This is the true importance of pulling your head out of the piles of stats and feel-good rankings and just WATCHING and seeing what happens during a game. Making plays when we need it is ALL that matters. Our 2005 defense wasn't ranked high statistically, but they came up with clutch turnovers and defensive TDs, clutch sacks, and were tough to score on in the red zone. Those are the traits I want from our defense.

I was terrified to lose that coin toss in OT, because I had no doubt Chicago would have moved down the field at will.

It's amazing to me that throughout the season, the strength of this team has inverted from the defense to the offense.

That 2005 defense also benefited from a very high scoring offense that forced opposing offenses to become one-dimensional, making the defense's job easier.

I don't know that we're going to see that kind of offense here, so our defense is going to have to improve.

It should be noted that this same defense also got a key 4th down stop in the red zone against Chicago, and held Matt Forte in check for the most part. And while I understand the frustration of watching Cutler and Marshall play pitch-and-catch, that shouldn't be cause for panic. Those two have had amazing chemistry since they came into the league, and they make each other better. Covering Marshall all day was impossible... the blame for that can go squarely on the lack of pass rush, because Cutler had plenty of time all day to improvise and find Marshall.

I don't know what it will take, but I'm starting to think we need to revamp our D-line philosophy.

We gave up a TD on a short drive spurred by a fumble recovery on the first drive, and a late (last second) FG that was set up by a poor pass rush, broken coverage and a bad play by one of our DBs. In between we gave up one TD, stopped the Bears on 4th and 1 which is now the single most important play the D made all day.

17 points on the road to an 8-3 team. Seems good to me. Not great, but good. Given the circumstances behind 10 of the 17 points the time betwen the defense played well. Again, not great. No QB sacks, little pressure and Marshall caught 150 yards worth. But 17 points, and only 7 in the 50 minutes between the first and last scores

Point is, we are not the defense of the first 6 weeks. But Wilson is not the same QB either. We are also not the same D on the road. I was really excited that despite the Marshall play we held them to 17 points given that it looked like we could be down two scores early.

Uncle Si wrote:We gave up a TD on a short drive spurred by a fumble recovery on the first drive, and a late (last second) FG that was set up by a poor pass rush, broken coverage and a bad play by one of our DBs. In between we gave up one TD, stopped the Bears on 4th and 1 which is now the single most important play the D made all day.

17 points on the road to an 8-3 team. Seems good to me. Not great, but good. Given the circumstances behind 10 of the 17 points the time betwen the defense played well. Again, not great. No QB sacks, little pressure and Marshall caught 150 yards worth. But 17 points, and only 7 in the 50 minutes between the first and last scores

Point is, we are not the defense of the first 6 weeks. But Wilson is not the same QB either. We are also not the same D on the road. I was really excited that despite the Marshall play we held them to 17 points given that it looked like we could be down two scores early.

All very good points. The concern for me is the late game problems/"letdowns" that have lead to wins by Az., Mia., Det. and a tie by Chi. It has seemed like when they are most needed, the D has let the team down. Being home for 3 of the next 4 should help a lot.

Uncle Si wrote:We gave up a TD on a short drive spurred by a fumble recovery on the first drive, and a late (last second) FG that was set up by a poor pass rush, broken coverage and a bad play by one of our DBs. In between we gave up one TD, stopped the Bears on 4th and 1 which is now the single most important play the D made all day.

17 points on the road to an 8-3 team. Seems good to me. Not great, but good. Given the circumstances behind 10 of the 17 points the time betwen the defense played well. Again, not great. No QB sacks, little pressure and Marshall caught 150 yards worth. But 17 points, and only 7 in the 50 minutes between the first and last scores

Point is, we are not the defense of the first 6 weeks. But Wilson is not the same QB either. We are also not the same D on the road. I was really excited that despite the Marshall play we held them to 17 points given that it looked like we could be down two scores early.

All very good points. The concern for me is the late game problems/"letdowns" that have lead to wins by Az., Mia., Det. and a tie by Chi. It has seemed like when they are most needed, the D has let the team down. Being home for 3 of the next 4 should help a lot.

That's exactly the problem - they are breaking down at the worst possible time. Overall, a good defense. Late in the game - they are scary and not in a good way.

The Radish wrote:As glad as I am to have won I have to say it looked to me as if the only reason we won the game is because of a coin toss.

Our defense only gave up 17 points but it seemed to not be their fault, more like Chi-Town's own ineptitude. One sure TD dropped and Browner not within 5 yards of the guy on a missed assignments.But the biggest thing to me is watching our running defensive whom earlier in the season could stop anyone anytime. Our defense is being out worked, out classed, or out coached, not sure which.

Oh yes they did come up with some great plays. But you have to admit they came up with some real stinkers!

And the last Chi-Town scoring play how could their best receiver who had been beating the crap out of us all game be left pretty much unattended? How damned embarassing! Why didn't someone chuck him at the los to screw up the play timing? In fact we seem to have backed off that now after it being so successful earlier in the season.

Am I being picky? Probably but is it to much to expect to want the defensive line we had in the early games, along with the offense we now have? That would be killer. If they continue with this kind of play we won't be killer, we'll be road kill.

I'm sorry but your completely wrong on the 2 highlighted items. A) Coverage wasn't blown on that dropped TD. Browner had him the whole way. He just got caught looking at the QB and lost track of his man. Yes it was his fault but it wasn't a "blown" coverage. B) Marshall wasn't left unattended. Sherman was coming over to try to intercept or break up the pass. He misjudged his jump carried him past (behind) Marshall aggressively came back towards the ball. Great play by him. Both players made mistakes that is all.

I'm actually encouraged by the defense. Why? Because they didn't play particularly well and only allowed 17 points after holding them to 14 points for 59 minutes of regulation. You must also factor in that there 2nd TD only came after 2 dubious personal foul calls. If it weren't for the first of those it would have been a 3 and out situation.

Uncle Si wrote:We gave up a TD on a short drive spurred by a fumble recovery on the first drive, and a late (last second) FG that was set up by a poor pass rush, broken coverage and a bad play by one of our DBs. In between we gave up one TD, stopped the Bears on 4th and 1 which is now the single most important play the D made all day.

17 points on the road to an 8-3 team. Seems good to me. Not great, but good. Given the circumstances behind 10 of the 17 points the time betwen the defense played well. Again, not great. No QB sacks, little pressure and Marshall caught 150 yards worth. But 17 points, and only 7 in the 50 minutes between the first and last scores

Point is, we are not the defense of the first 6 weeks. But Wilson is not the same QB either. We are also not the same D on the road. I was really excited that despite the Marshall play we held them to 17 points given that it looked like we could be down two scores early.

All very good points. The concern for me is the late game problems/"letdowns" that have lead to wins by Az., Mia., Det. and a tie by Chi. It has seemed like when they are most needed, the D has let the team down. Being home for 3 of the next 4 should help a lot.

That's exactly the problem - they are breaking down at the worst possible time. Overall, a good defense. Late in the game - they are scary and not in a good way.

A defense faltering at the end of the games is not a good thing.

True they've failed against Miami, Detroit to Arizona. But on the other hand you have to credit them for closing out the Carolina and Patriots games. This is a young defense which will be inconsistent at times. The defense is 2-3 in games they could have closed out. obviously we'd like to be 5-0 in those situation but we aren't experienced enough to do that. I think the extremely high expectations are the cause of all the angst. This defense is good. Not great, but good. With an improving offense that's all we can really hope for at this point.

I'm sorry but your completely wrong on the 2 highlighted items. A) Coverage wasn't blown on that dropped TD. Browner had him the whole way. He just got caught looking at the QB and lost track of his man. Yes it was his fault but it wasn't a "blown" coverage. B) Marshall wasn't left unattended. Sherman was coming over to try to intercept or break up the pass. He misjudged his jump carried him past (behind) Marshall aggressively came back towards the ball. Great play by him. Both players made mistakes that is all.

Why are you sorry? its your opinion.

Now let me say my example of a "blown" coverage includes a player/players making dumb mistakes.

So if Browner didn't blow the coverage by looking at the QB rather than his responsiblity what else would you call it?

And Sherman playing the ball rather than the player and whiffed the play? Again in my opinion that is clearly the player "blowing" the coverage.

Good defenders temper where they take chances. The place to take chances is not in the final 30 seconds of the game.

So lets agree to disagree. to me making a mistake=blowing the coverage.

And one more thing,,,,I'm damned tired of this "oh they're a young team" bullshit!(no I didn't mean you said that) Yep it was true months ago. But they had played 11 games prior to Chi-Town, they aren't kids anymore!

If they are going to use that excuse don't count on playoffs or if some doing well. We're WAY PAST time to use such a grade school excuse. Do your jobs!!!

Uncle Si wrote:We gave up a TD on a short drive spurred by a fumble recovery on the first drive, and a late (last second) FG that was set up by a poor pass rush, broken coverage and a bad play by one of our DBs. In between we gave up one TD, stopped the Bears on 4th and 1 which is now the single most important play the D made all day.

17 points on the road to an 8-3 team. Seems good to me. Not great, but good. Given the circumstances behind 10 of the 17 points the time betwen the defense played well. Again, not great. No QB sacks, little pressure and Marshall caught 150 yards worth. But 17 points, and only 7 in the 50 minutes between the first and last scores

Point is, we are not the defense of the first 6 weeks. But Wilson is not the same QB either. We are also not the same D on the road. I was really excited that despite the Marshall play we held them to 17 points given that it looked like we could be down two scores early.

All very good points. The concern for me is the late game problems/"letdowns" that have lead to wins by Az., Mia., Det. and a tie by Chi. It has seemed like when they are most needed, the D has let the team down. Being home for 3 of the next 4 should help a lot.

whats really interesting is that all four of those are on the road... is it really that simple? We've had close games at home too. Anyways, found this stat interesting (it does not take into account when points are scored or where)...

first 8 games D allowed 16.8 points/game, (4-4), last 4 games 17.0 (3-1, this includes Wilson's fumble returned for TD).

It also does not include the fact that Wilson has not thrown a pick in any of the last 4 games, which also helps the D immensely. I think where the team needs to improve is a little bit better drive management by the offense (an extra field goal earlier in the game makes the difference in all 4 games) and turnovers by the D. be nice to see an interception/fumble or 2 over the next 4 weeks

I don't get why we had Browner in zone coverage on Marshall, which isn't his strong suite. I also don't get why we didn't double Marshall....yea Browner should be good enough to cover him one on one, but they had him in a poor coverage for his talents. Double team Marshall and make Cutler at least looks somewhere else. That might give our pass rush time to get to him.

Still wondering where the pass rush was against a bad Bears' OL. We blitzed a few times and Cutler made us pay for it, so I don't blame them for not going back to it.

Overall, I thought we did ok, points wise we did decent on the road against a team that scores a lot of points. Now, at least we aren't trending downwards like we were, but there are still some problems and holes.

Marshall and Cutler have worked together for years and have serious chemistry...like peyton and marvin not tooo long ago...tough for anyone to stop, but the NFL game is that of adjustments and we did that in the second half

not how you start its how you finish, but to stop that we had to back off pressure...result was we won!

as far as the run....what do you expect with a Rookie Middle Linebacker...goes with the territory

I agree with the spirit of this thread- I agree that the coin toss probably decided the game.

That said, the run defense was very good in the Chicago game. The bears averaged just 4 yards per carry and quite frankly I think they lost the game and allowed Seattle's comeback by going more run heavy in the second half.

The secondary sucked though. I blame the lack of blitzing and the abundance of zone coverage.